+1, sounds great! Regards, Alexey
> On 2 Feb 2018, at 07:14, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote: > +1 > > Regards > JB > > On 02/01/2018 07:54 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Luke, Thomas, and I had some in-person discussions about the use of Java 8 > > futures and Guava futures in the portability support code. I wanted to > > bring our > > thoughts to the dev list for feedback. > > > > As background: > > > > - Java 5+ "Future" lacks the main purpose of future, which is async > > chaining. > > - Guava introduced ListenableFuture to do real future-oriented programming > > - Java 8 added CompletionStage which is more-or-less the expected interface > > > > It is still debatable whether Java got it right [1]. But since it is > > standardized, doesn't need to be shaded, etc, it is worth trying to just > > use it > > carefully in the right ways. So we thought to propose that we migrate most > > uses > > of Guava futures to Java 8 futures. > > > > What do you think? Have we missed an important problem that would make this > > a > > deal-breaker? > > > > Kenn > > > > [1] > > e.g. > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38744943/listenablefuture-vs-completablefuture#comment72041244_39250452 > > > > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38744943/listenablefuture-vs-completablefuture#comment72041244_39250452> > > and such discussions are likely to occur whenever you bring it up with > > someone > > who cares a lot about futures :-) > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> > http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net/> > Talend - http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com/> >
